I own the 200 f/2 and have for some time now. It is my main lens that I use as it is just hard to find anything that works better (for me). As for a replacement, I can see where they would significantly reduce the weight and improve the IS by a few stops. Those two things alone would make it a great purchase but the MK1 will still be a great lens as well. I don't think a newer version would reduce the value of the MK1 so don't expect to see mine up for sale at 1/2 price.

the price of used mk1s will probably INCREASE since i bet the new one will be knocking on the door of $10k

The only way they can jack up the price is by changing the costume and launching the same lens as a new lens with a new tan (an extra layer of some all new magical coating), new clothes and accents on...

Or maybe they will change from 200/2 to 200/1.8 and jack up the price close to 10K.

The only way they can jack up the price is by changing the costume and launching the same lens as a new lens with a new tan (an extra layer of some all new magical coating), new clothes and accents on...

Or maybe they will change from 200/2 to 200/1.8 and jack up the price close to 10K.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

I've spoken to several different sources at Canon and they all confirm one thing about Canon, they're not a company that makes cameras, they're a company that makes money.

Canon will sonner spit in the face of every one of their customers and set those customers on fire if it makes them money than release a good product.

The 5D Mark III was ready over a year before it was released but Canon just sat on the design until Nikon released their new body because they knew they could charge top dollar for their current product.

The ONLY reason Canon released the 24-70mm f/2.8 II was NOT in any way shape or form to help it's customers with a great lens but because the old lens was getting too expensive to make because they were all being sent in for warranty.

Canon has also sat on the 7D2 design, until Nikon fired off the D7100. The EOS M was designed as cheaply as possible with the highest profit margin possible because Canon thought their customers were idiots. It didn't work.

Like I said, Canon itself admits at all levels that it has no interest in making quality products, it only care about making as much money as possible and it will sell you a ton of garbage and call it gold as long as it can. Canon is sitting on every product you can dream of but they won't sell you any of it until they think you'll stop buying their old junk, or they know they can price gouge you like crazy for the replacement. They have a ton of decade old lenses that are a complete embarassment to even keep selling (100-400 cough cough), and Canon won't replace them until the year Nikon comes up with a much better one, which in the case of Nikon's 80-400 they just did, by a huge margin.

The only reason the entry level primes were replaced (24,28,&35mm primes) is because Canon banked on the fact they could charge double to movie maker for them. The 35mmm f/1.4 was an aging embarassingly old decade+ old design, and the 35mm f/1.4 II was coincidence slated for rlease the same year Sigma slammed Canon with their 35mm f/1.4. Canon has had the replacement fully tested and ready for 3 years now, but just sat on the redesign.

Their idea for a 24-105mm replacement? Add macro and charge double. At Canon innovation means sitting on the products they know need to be updated until the last possible moment, or realeasing gimicky new products that they try to justify ridiculous price gouging for. Canon 1DC? A 1DX that costs double with special firmware. Canon cinema 24, 50 & 85mm primes? Existing L primes with updated coatings, very minor tweaks and a new case that cost 5 times as much.

Price gouging or dragging their feet, that's the Canon way. This will be price gouging because there is no competetive reason to update their lenses. Prepare for a $9,000 + 200mm f/2.0 IS II. Lighter, with better coatings etc.

Price gouging or dragging their feet, that's the Canon way. This will be price gouging because there is no competetive reason to update their lenses. Prepare for a $9,000 + 200mm f/2.0 IS II. Lighter, with better coatings etc.

Maybe not a competitive reason...but a technological one for sure. Older lenses are not necessarily capable of resolving enough detail to support higher density sensors. That fact is often clearly demonstrated in the MTFs of older canon lenses that have just been replaced (like the 24-70/2....sometimes the differences are very significant, and often HUGE in the corners. Canon has stuck with an 18mp APS-C sensor for a long time for a reason...it is pushing the limits of what their current lenses are capable of (particularly in the corners, and improved corner performance is a common theme in all of Canon's recent lens releases), and going to smaller pixels will reveal more "softness" (that is really a misnomer, a higher resolution sensor will still do better with current lenses...but its a perception thing...people see "soft" and plain and simply don't like it.)

I would say Canon is updating the bulk of their L-series line of lenses for TECHNOLOGICAL reasons. It's been a decade or more on quite a number of their L-series lenses, and at least that long since any significant improvements in optics and multicoating. Canon only recently (relatively speaking) developed SWC, or Subwavelength Coating, a nano-tech coating that reduces the TOTAL transmission loss in a lens from several percent at least to less than 1% at most. That significantly improves microcontrast in all situations and reduces flare considerably in the worst of situations. They have started using multiple fluorite lens elements as well as aspheric elements in place of multiple UD elements and element groups to reduce weight and produce superior aberration control. Most lens updates going back a number of years were primarily for the addition of IS, with only minor improvements in the optics themselves, so resolution wise, Canon's lenses have been the same for 10-20 years.

Technologically speaking, if Canon really intends to push into the 40, 50, 60mp sensor range or farther on the FF side, and 20-30mp on the APS-C side, refreshing their line of lenses for significantly superior optics is a smart thing to do. This new line of lenses should last for the next decade, maybe two?

These lenses aren't cheap because there is a lot of R&D invested in them. Canon is refreshing the bulk of their lens line, and along the way has designed and patented a lot of new technologies that will likely find their way into new lenses as well. All that R&D costs millions. Personally, I'd rather have Canon be smart and savvy about where they take their DSLR technology, and release lenses that are up to snuff for higher density sensors BEFORE they hit the market...than have them go the Nikon route and have the bulk of their customers complain about insufficient IS or poor optics that prevent taking tack-sharp photos with the likes of the D800, D600, or D3200.

Canon has a cohesive, long-term vision for their photographic equipment...something I wouldn't say the competition does nearly as well (or doesn't do at all...just look at how Nikon has named their DSLR cameras over the last decade to see how addled that corporate brain is...). Brand new lenses cost a lot of money...its a hell of a lot of extremely advanced optical technology (and I'd argue that Canon has the best DSLR optics on the planet right now, with the HIGHEST QUALITY, backed up by the BEST SUPPORT in the industry) that cost a crap-ton of money to design and develop. If you want the best of the best, and want it right now...well, PAY UP! If not...the prices will drop soon enough, once the high demand and backlog have subsided.

I believe you, @Radiating, have Greener Grass syndrome. You look across the fence and see something in those fields of Nikon D800's and think Nikon is doing everything right and Canon is doing everything wrong. You should hop around the net for a while and read various Nikon forums for a while. Those guys bitch so much about their Nikon gear, you'd think they were Canonites in Nikon clothing! There is no greener grass. Nikon has a few cameras with a whopping good sensor, and a COUPLE of their recently released lenses are great (like the 80-400). A LOT of Nikon stuff, however, including the vaunted D800 and D600, have had more than their fair share of problems. The only significant "problem" to hit the 5D III was the light leak issue, and Canon responded quickly. Check out the number of problems the D800 and D600 have and are still having, and read all the forums where Nikon users are STILL complaining about such issues (as well as complaining about the horrible support experiences they have had on a regular and continuing basis with Nikon customer support.)

There is no greener grass, every brand has its problems, its lagging technology, its missteps and glitches, etc. Right now, when it comes to lenses, Canon's new releases are the creme of the crop. They are lighter, better balanced, have the best IS available, support the fastest and most precise AF (especially when paired with a new Canon body that supports new AF drive functionality), offer unparalleled sharpness, and are ready for the future. I'd happily give up a couple stops of low ISO DR for that. A lens can last for a lifetime. Camera bodies come and go. I think Canon will have the best of all worlds...lens, sensor, AF, ISO, everything...soon enough.

While its a well written piece there are a few plot holes that you failed to fill.

All companies are in business to make money, not just Canon. Canon makes "Imaging Products" as their bread and butter, not Cameras.

Quote

At Canon innovation means sitting on the products they know need to be updated until the last possible moment, or realeasing gimicky new products that they try to justify ridiculous price gouging for. Canon 1DC? A 1DX that costs double with special firmware. Canon cinema 24, 50 & 85mm primes? Existing L primes with updated coatings, very minor tweaks and a new case that cost 5 times as much.

The Cine primes are that price for a reason, very very very very very TIGHT tolerances. The L lenses and the Cine lenses are NOTHING alike and not made to the same specs. The 1Dc has a few differences other then "special firmware", it is mainly related to cooling the sensor and buffer for recording. It is also a smaller market, with a smaller supply, meaning the tooling costs more and as such the part costs more. I work in Precision manufacturing and design, When I tell a client it will cost $10,000 to mill a piece out of aircraft grade aluminum for their project they gladly pay. Same goes for cine people, their lenses and clients.

Quote

The ONLY reason Canon released the 24-70mm f/2.8 II was NOT in any way shape or form to help it's customers with a great lens but because the old lens was getting too expensive to make because they were all being sent in for warranty.

Mk1 24-70 costing too much to produce because of warranty repairs that late into the manufacturing cycle?!? That makes little to no sense at all (gimme some of what you are smoking!). The tooling costs for that lens and parts were paid years ago, the lifetime of that lens was 10 years (manufacturing). 10 years easily pays for tooling on equipment like that. I never had an issue with mine in the 6 years I had it nor did the group of about 100 photographers I know who still own one.

Quote

Canon has also sat on the 7D2 design, until Nikon fired off the D7100. The EOS M was designed as cheaply as possible with the highest profit margin possible because Canon thought their customers were idiots. It didn't work.

D7100 is not an equivalent to the proposed 7DII. It will be on par with a rumored D70. The 7DII is more of a Mini 1Dx.

Quote

Like I said, Canon itself admits at all levels that it has no interest in making quality products, it only care about making as much money as possible and it will sell you a ton of garbage and call it gold as long as it can. Canon is sitting on every product you can dream of but they won't sell you any of it until they think you'll stop buying their old junk, or they know they can price gouge you like crazy for the replacement. They have a ton of decade old lenses that are a complete embarassment to even keep selling (100-400 cough cough), and Canon won't replace them until the year Nikon comes up with a much better one, which in the case of Nikon's 80-400 they just did, by a huge margin.

No interest in making quality products? That is suicide from a management and sales standpoint. A company as large as Canon would Never admit at all levels that it has no interest in making quality products as the second people hear that they will go to another company that is committed to quality and has a reputation as such. Everything they make is quality. If it was not, why did canon sell the most DSLR's last year? If they did not make quality gear and have a commitment to it why is their camera division not being sold off or put out of business? If you say "I don't care about my job, I am just going to wing it and take home as much as I can" to your boss, clients etc. what do you think they would say?

I'm kind of surprised to hear about the 200 f/2L IS being up for replacement already. The current model is already considered to be pretty close to optically perfect and has an effective IS system. I also doubt that it is a high volume lens at its current price, and Canon seems incapable of designing replacements that are even close to the price of current models.

This seems like a bit of a head scratcher to me, although I wouldn't be sad to see some MK I's at reduced prices on the used market.

The newer hood design needs a different front to each lens. The newer lenses don't have a protection element, which the mkI lenses do. The newer ones are a complete redesign, mechanically and optically. The newer ones are a LOT lighter, the new 400 f2.8 is hanholdable and the new 500L is amazingly light in weight. The newer lenses are better in every regard, sharper, less vignetting, better TC results, better IS and faster AF. There are newer coatings (SWF or what ever Canon now call it), Flourite coatings to reduce dust attraction and make them less flare prone.

Sure the new ones are expensive, but they are slowly coming down in price. If you couldn't afford a white tele before the mkII's the increase in price isn't going to make any difference. There's plenty of great condition S/H copies of the mkI lenses available.

All Canon lenses are rediculously over priced in their first year...but there's plenty of muppets who want to pay this premium to brag the newest toys. Wait a few years, let the initial batch issues get ironed out and then snag a bargain. Just remember that well looked after Canon lenses are usually worth more over time. Most of my lenses from 6 years back, which I bought new are now worth more S/H than what I originally paid for them. The same is true with the big whites. If you buy a mkI 500L S/H...it will never loose you money and probably go up in value over time. Where as the resale value of DSLR camera bodies drop like a lead ballon over time.